Pascal vs Hopkins will it be a good fight?

[THE REED]

[QUOTE=street bully;9762293]

You are saying I can't read, when I read and interpreted what you wrote. All I pointed out was what you said, it isn't that complicated really.

Apparently, it is complicated.

Because saying that Hopkins isn't fundamental because he holds, headbutts, rabbit punches, and fakes lowblows for timeouts.

It's not the same as saying.. that those particular things are not in fact fundamental.

Hopkins does have technical skill and fundamentals... HOWEVER, those things listed.. are NOT fundamental or technical skill... they are scapegoats and dirty fighting tactics.

[street bully]

[QUOTE=ree****yaluss;9762301]

Apparently, it is complicated.

Because saying that Hopkins isn't fundamental because he holds, headbutts, rabbit punches, and fakes lowblows for timeouts.

It's not the same as saying.. that those particular things are not in fact fundamental.

Hopkins does have technical skill and fundamentals... HOWEVER, those things listed.. are NOT fundamental or technical skill... they are scapegoats and dirty fighting tactics.

There you go. Hey man I can only read what you write, I can't read minds, but what I read and said were the same things.

[djtmal]

[QUOTE=street bully;9762319]

There you go. Hey man I can only read what you write, I can't read minds, but what I read and said were the same things.

hopkins is garbage..end of debate

[street bully]

[QUOTE=djtmal;9762325]

hopkins is garbage..end of debate

That is your opinion, and I really don't give two ****s about it. Please talk about something else man, there are lots of live threads.

[THE REED]

[QUOTE=street bully;9762319]

There you go. Hey man I can only read what you write, I can't read minds, but what I read and said were the same things.

Maybe the way you read it.. but not the way I wrote it.

They are seperate.

As much as Hopkins may have technical, he equally has in dirty fighting tactics.

For every good technical punch he throws, he follows up with a headbutt or a clinch.

Everytime he uses this "great footwork", he seemingly ends up in a hugfest and rabbit punching his opponent.

It's like a good plot with bad actors.

Is he technical? Sure.

Is he a dirty fighter? Absolutely.

[street bully]

[QUOTE=ree****yaluss;9762341]

Maybe the way you read it.. but not the way I wrote it.

They are seperate.

As much as Hopkins may have technical, he equally has in dirty fighting tactics.

For every good technical punch he throws, he follows up with a headbutt or a clinch.

Everytime he uses this "great footwork", he seemingly ends up in a hugfest and rabbit punching his opponent.

It's like a good movie with bad actors.

Is he technical? Sure.

Is he a dirty fighter? Absolutely.

Hey man if I write something that means the opposite of what I mean I wont deny it, mistakes happen. But when you read so and so don't have such a trait (in this case technical ability) EITHER when the main subject of discussion (in this case Hopkins) has that trait, and then go off when I say that what you said does not make sense, claiming that you never said that (in this case that Hopkins like the aforementioned fighters does not have fundemental skills) when you did, then who is at fault man?

Look man I don't really debate mundane ****, but come on to say the way I read it, which was the correct way, led me to that conclusion rather than the way you wrote it makes zero sense. This is especially true when you couple that with the fact you said that you mentioned that you meant not to say EITHER (which you did), but are.

[djtmal]

[QUOTE=street bully;9762335]

That is your opinion, and I really don't give two ****s about it. Please talk about something else man, there are lots of live threads.

Thats right its my opinion all right. Quite a few share it.

Guess I better join the million and one Pac-***** threads. Naaaa. Kicking Hopkins back in is more entertaining. Especially with nutthuggers like you ready to defend his boring style. Lol

[djtmal]

[QUOTE=ree****yaluss;9762341]

Maybe the way you read it.. but not the way I wrote it.

They are seperate.

As much as Hopkins may have technical, he equally has in dirty fighting tactics.

For every good technical punch he throws, he follows up with a headbutt or a clinch.

Everytime he uses this "great footwork", he seemingly ends up in a hugfest and rabbit punching his opponent.

It's like a good plot with bad actors.

Is he technical? Sure.

Is he a dirty fighter? Absolutely.

sorta like watching a ****o flick with a storyline....

[King Ju-Ju]

i hope pascal wins, i wanna see him fight cloud.

[THE REED]

[QUOTE=street bully;9762412]

Hey man if I write something that means the opposite of what I mean I wont deny it, mistakes happen. But when you read so and so don't have such a trait (in this case technical ability) EITHER when the main subject of discussion (in this case Hopkins) has that trait, and then go off when I say that what you said does not make sense, claiming that you never said that (in this case that Hopkins like the aforementioned fighters does not have fundemental skills) when you did, then who is at fault man?

Look man I don't really debate mundane ****, but come on to say the way I read it, which was the correct way, led me to that conclusion rather than the way you wrote it makes zero sense. This is especially true when you couple that with the fact you said that you mentioned that you meant not to say EITHER (which you did), but are.

The either at the end of the sentence had no meaning whatsoever, I wasn't implying that Hopkins "also or either" had no technical ability.

If that's what I meant, then I would say it right here right now.. no point in believing something 5 mins ago and then not believing it now.

The "either" at the end of the sentence, didn't make much sense in hindsite because I wasn't really comparing those 3 fighters with anyone else other than something you discretely said in your post...

I read your post, and I saw how you "sort of" threw Roy in there, by saying.. athletic freak who gets out of the way of punches, and then you went on to say what about Berto, Gamboa, or Williams...

So when I said either, the either was more in relation to this freak of nature that you posted about aka ROY, I am assuming.

In other words... He wasn't and Berto, Williams and Gamoa aren't either.